Perez et al v. Bayer Corporation et al

Filing 28

ORDER REMANDING ACTION by Hon. William Alsup granting 27 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Alycia A Degen (SBN 211350)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants and
Specially Appearing Defendants
Kristy M. Arevalo (SBN 216308)
McCUNE-WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
9281 East Guast i Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

NATACHA PEREZ, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BAYER CORP.; BAYER HEALTHCARE
LLC; BAYER ESSURE INC., (F/K/A
)
CONCEPTUS, INC.); BAYER HEALTHCARE )
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and DOES 1-10, )
inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17-cv-01847-WHA
JOINT STIPULATION TO
REMAND; [PROPOSED ORDER]
Honorable William Alsup
Date: None Set
Time:
Place: San Francisco Courthouse, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, 19th Floor, Courtroom
8, San Francisco, California 94102

23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND;
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01847-WHA

1

Plaintiffs Natacha Perez, et al., and defendants and specially-appearing defendants Bayer

2

Corporation, Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare LLC, and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals

3

Inc. (collectively, “Bayer”), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

4

1.

Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on December 23, 2016, in the Superior Court

5

for the State of California, County of Alameda. In their complaint, Plaintiffs asserted claims

6

involving the Essure® Permanent Birth Control System (the “Essure® Device”).

7
8

2.

Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

9
10

On April 5, 2017, Bayer removed the matter from the Alameda County Superior

3.

Bayer filed its Motion to Dismiss on April 10, 2017, on the grounds of federal

preemption, among other grounds.

11

4.

On April 20, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to remand this action to the Superior Court of

12

Alameda County, State of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, on the grounds that this Court

13

lacks jurisdiction over this action.

14

5.

On April 27, 2017, briefing on Bayer’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion to

15

Remand was stayed pending this Court’s decision in a related case pending before this Court

16

involving the Essure® Device, captioned as Elizabeth Ann Sangimino, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al.,

17

Case No. 3:17-cv-01488-WHA.

18
19

6.

On June 9, 2017, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand in the Sangimino

matter and denied the Motion to Dismiss as moot.

20
7.

The parties have met and conferred and agree to remand this case to the Alameda

21
22

County Superior Court.
8.

23

The parties thus respectfully ask the Court to enter an order remanding this case to

24

state court based on the stipulation of the parties.

25

//

26
27

//
//

28
1
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01847-WHA

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

2 Dated: June 19, 2017

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

3
By: /s/ Alycia A. Degen
Alycia A. Degen
Bradley J. Dugan

4
5

Attorneys for Defendants and Specially
Appearing Defendants
Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC,
Bayer Essure Inc., and Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.

6
7
8
9 Dated: June 19, 2017
10
11
12

McCUNE-WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
By: /s/ Kristy M. Arevalo
Kristy M. Arevalo
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Natacha Perez, et al.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01847-WHA

1
2
3

FILER’S ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), regarding signatures, Alycia A. Degen hereby attests that
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from counsel for Plaintiffs.

4
5
6

Dated: June 19, 2017

By:

/s/ Alycia A. Degen _
Alycia A. Degen

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
JOINT STIPULATION TO REMAND; CASE NO. 3:17-CV-01847-WHA

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2
3

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, and for good cause shown, IT IS

4

ORDERED THAT Perez v. Bayer Corporation, Case No. 3:17-CV-01847-WHA, be remanded to

5

the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: June 20 2017 .
__,

__________________________________
Honorable William H. Alsup

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER - 3:17-CV-01847-WHA